Care Quality Commission: Contract Register & Procurement Profile

GOV.UK register: Executive non-departmental public bodyCentral governmentNorth East EnglandNewcastle upon Tyne

Official UK PPONPBJZ-7139-JTHNWebsitecqc.org.uk ↗

Open now0no live notices
i

Tenders you can still bid for.

Notices at tender stage whose deadline has not passed, counted the way the search counts them: a notice shows under every code and region it names.

Notices, last 12 months19+6% vs prior 12 months (18)
i

Notices published in the last 12 months.

Counted per tender, not per lot, against the 12 months before where shown.

Typical bids per lot3.525% single-bid · 4 bid reports
i

How many companies usually bid when this buyer runs a tender.

Middle value of the bid counts on its award notices, one per lot. Only real competitions count: direct awards and framework places are left out.

Based on 4 lots from this buyer’s competitions, last 24 months. Small sample.

Last 24 months, all categories.

Top-3 supplier share28%of 47 awarded procedures · 80 suppliers
i

How much of this buyer’s work goes to its three most frequent suppliers.

Share of its awarded tenders that name at least one of the top three. Each tender is counted once.

47 awarded tenders, 80 different suppliers.

Describes the record. It is not a sign of favouritism.

All awards we hold.

Contracts ending ≤18 months127 within 6 months · 4 estimated
i

Contracts that finish in the next 18 months.

Contracts ending in that window by the published end date or, where only a duration is published, an estimate from signature plus duration (marked). Neither, not counted.

An end date does not confirm a new procurement.

Published award value, 24m£55mnet · on 22 of 22 published values · top 5 = 97%
i

How much this buyer has awarded recently, by published values.

Sum of published VAT-exclusive awards to single suppliers, last 24 months. Left out: concession revenue, framework ceilings, repeated notices, equal-value duplicates.

Published values, not actual spend. The biggest rows are listed so you can check.

What they buy
i

What kind of work is bought here.

Notices by procurement category (CPV). A notice with several categories counts in each.

Last 24 months · CPV divisions on published procedures · a notice with several divisions counts in each

How they buy
i

How work here is packaged.

Notices by commercial tool: a single contract, a framework, or a dynamic purchasing system.

Last 24 months · 37 notices · commercial tool and route as published on the notice, not a legal-regime claim

Commercial tool
i

How work here is packaged.

Notices by commercial tool: a single contract, a framework, or a dynamic purchasing system.

  • Contract89%(33 notices)
    33 of 37 notices are Contract (89%).
  • Dynamic purchasing system8%(3 notices)
    3 of 37 notices are Dynamic purchasing system (8%).
  • Framework3%(1 notice)
    1 of 37 notices is Framework (3%).
Procedure route
i

Which procedures buyers here use.

Notices by the procedure they declare: open, selective, limited or direct. Open and selective are competitions; limited and direct are not.

  • Direct award41%(15 notices)
    15 of 37 notices are Direct award (41%).
  • Selective27%(10 notices)
    10 of 37 notices are Selective (27%).
  • Route not published24%(9 notices)
    9 of 37 notices are Route not published (24%).
  • Limited / restricted5%(2 notices)
    2 of 37 notices are Limited / restricted (5%).
  • Open3%(1 notice)
    1 of 37 notices is Open (3%).
Typical bids per lot
i

How many companies usually bid when this buyer runs a tender.

Middle value of the bid counts on its award notices, one per lot. Only real competitions count: direct awards and framework places are left out.

Based on 4 lots from this buyer’s competitions, last 24 months. Small sample.

Last 24 months, all categories.

3.5moderate · n=425% of lots drew a single bid
Notice amendments
i

How often this buyer changes a notice after publishing it.

Middle number of amendments per notice. Deadline extensions and corrections both count.

Based on 37 notices across all categories, last 24 months.

Last 24 months.

03 of 37 notices amended
Award vs estimate
i

Do this buyer’s awards land above or below its own estimates.

Each lot’s published estimate against its award, on this buyer’s competitions, like for like.

Based on 1 lots with both an estimate and an award, last 24 months. Small sample.

A past pattern, not a price to bid.

Last 24 months.

0% at estimateindicative · n=1

Who wins here
i

Which suppliers win the most here.

Suppliers ranked by the number of tenders won, not by money. A supplier on one big framework with many call-offs does not outrank one that won many separate competitions.

All published awards naming a supplier · ranked by distinct procedures, not pounds · panel and call-off entries inflate award records

SupplierProceduresShareLast 24mAward recordsLast activity
Oracle Corporation UK Limited612.8%07—
Picker Institute Europeframework/DPS on 248.5%05—
Cambridge Sparkframework/DPS on 336.4%23—
Diligent Boardbooks Limited24.3%22—
Blue Lozenge Limited24.3%22—
Rock Kitchen Harris Ltd24.3%22—
THE COPYRIGHT LICENSING AGENCY LTD24.3%22—
BMG Research Limitedframework/DPS on 124.3%02—

The three most frequent suppliers are named on 28% of 47 awarded procedures (each procedure counted once, so a panel shared by several of them is not double-counted); 80 distinct suppliers hold at least one. Descriptive concentration of published awards, not a statement of preference.

Published award value (24m)
i

How much this buyer has awarded recently, by published values.

Sum of published VAT-exclusive awards to single suppliers, last 24 months. Left out: concession revenue, framework ceilings, repeated notices, equal-value duplicates.

Published values, not actual spend. The biggest rows are listed so you can check.

£55mSum of published VAT-exclusive values on 22 of 22 published single-supplier values; the five largest make 97%.
Typical single-supplier award (24m)
i

The middle published award value for this buyer.

Middle value of the same awards as the total above.

Last 24 months.

£75k middle valuerobust · n=22Middle half £46k–£251k.
Largest published awards
i

The biggest published awards.

Awards to a single supplier with a published value, largest first, so you can check the totals against the notice.

A repeated framework total can appear here. Open the notice to check.

SupplierAwardedTermPublished value
Regulatory IT Platform Delivery PartnerHitachi Solutions Europe Ltd16 Jul 20263 yrs£43,333,333
≈ £14m/yr
CQC Experts by Experience ServicesChoice Support——£7,445,364 †
CQC Public Engagement NetworkNational Voices——£1,297,492 †
Supply and Installation of Specialist Ergonomic Furniture / Equipment SolutionsBACK CARE SOLUTIONS4 Jun 20264 yrs£666,667
≈ £167k/yr
Associate Project Manager Level 4 ApprenticeshipCalderdale College——£399,000 †

Contracts ending
i

Contracts that finish in the next 18 months.

Contracts ending in that window by the published end date or, where only a duration is published, an estimate from signature plus duration (marked). Neither, not counted.

An end date does not confirm a new procurement.

44 of 64 contracts carry an end date, 22 estimated from the duration · not a retender forecast

Soonest 10 of 12 contracts ending within 18 months.

Recent procedures

Latest 50 of 64 procedures where this authority buys, is the authority the work is for, or runs the procurement

ProcedureStatusPublishedPublished value
Omni Channel Contact Centre SolutionSoftware package and information systemsPlanned20 Feb 2026£1,091,754
Conference and VenuesEvent servicesPlanned20 Feb 2026£2,500,000
Travel ServicesTravel management servicesPlanned20 Feb 2026£8,750,000
Managed IT ServicesIT services: consultingPlanned20 Feb 2026£17,007,635
IT Peripherals and Assistive TechnologyComputer equipment and suppliesPlanned20 Feb 2026£6,541,667
MNSI Website and Referral PortalAwarded / complete9 Feb 2026—
NGO Communication and Engagement SupportAwarded / complete9 Feb 2026—
NHS Patient Survey ProgrammeMarket research servicesPlanned6 Feb 2026£2,925,000
Development, Hosting and Support for the MNSI WebsiteAwarded / complete2 Feb 2026—
RM6102 DPS Call Off Contract for Level 5 Data Engineer ApprenticeshipDPSEducation and training servicesAwarded / complete15 Dec 2025—
Follow up work to Care Provider Alliance recommendationsAwarded / complete9 Oct 2025—
Governance ReviewAwarded / complete25 Sept 2025—
RM6102 DPS Call Off Contract for Coaching Professional Level 5 ApprenticeshipDPSEducation and training servicesAwarded / complete1 Sept 2025—
Diligent BoardsAwarded / complete1 Aug 2025—
Associate Project Manager Level 4 ApprenticeshipEducation and training servicesAwarded / complete3 Jul 2025—
CLA Public Administration Licence 2025 - 2026Awarded / complete8 May 2025—
Microsoft Enterprise Agreement and Related ServicesSoftware package and information systemsPlanned1 May 2025£21,481,026
Experts by Experience ServicesHealth and social work servicesPlanned7 Feb 2025£10,000,000
RM6102 DPS Call Off Contract for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Data Specialist Level 7 ApprenticeshipsDPSEducation and training servicesAwarded / complete12 Dec 2024—
Oracle Support & MaintenanceIT services: consultingAwarded / complete4 Oct 2024—

Search all 64 procedures for this authority →

About this data
  • Source. Official UK public procurement notices (Find a Tender), reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. New notices arrive through the day; the figures are rebuilt nightly.
  • One profile per authority. Different spellings and registration numbers of the same body are merged into this profile. It includes tenders the authority ran for other bodies and tenders run on its behalf; spend is credited to the body that pays.
  • Values are published values. Award values are what the authority published, excluding VAT and framework ceilings. They are not a budget or total spend.
  • Contract end dates. 44 of 64 published contracts have an end date; 22 of those are estimated as the signature (or publication) date plus the published duration and are marked “estimated”. They feed “Contracts ending”, the same rule as the retender radar.
  • Every figure shows what it rests on. Not every notice publishes a bid count, a value or a delivery region, so each figure carries the number of records behind it, and one built on few records is marked as such. The on a figure explains it; the counting rules are in the methodology. Spotted something wrong? Tell us.